MANOJKUMAR NEMAJI SHAHARE Vs. ZILLA PARISHAD, NAGPUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally with the consent of the learned counsel appearing for the parties.

(2.) The petitioner has challenged imposition of penalty of withholding of two increments permanently and to treat the period of his suspension as being on suspension, on the grounds; firstly that the enquiry leading to imposition of penalty was initiated against him under Rules that were not applicable to him, thereby vitiating the entire enquiry; secondly that the charge sheet was issued to him not by the disciplinary authority but by the appellate authority, thereby vitiating his right to appeal before the appellate authority against the order of penalty imposed by the disciplinary authority and thirdly that the material on record, including the enquiry report clearly demonstrated that the petitioner could not be held guilty of the charges levelled against him and that, therefore, the imposition of penalty was wholly unsustainable even on merits.

(3.) The petitioner was appointed as a Gram Sevak on 06.10.1992 and he was promoted to the post of the Village Development Officer in the year 1999. Thereafter, in February 2007 he was promoted as Extension Officer, Panchayat. As per Government Resolution dated 22.09.2003 issued by the Department of Revenue and Forests, Government of Maharashtra, amount collected by Collector of Stamps towards stamp duty was to be paid to the Zilla Parishad to be further allotted to the Gram Panchayats wherein the properties were situated, in respect of which transactions had taken place. A letter was received by the respondent no.1 Zilla Parishad for such distribution of amounts to the Gram Panchayats for the financial year 2010-2011, however, the list of Gram Panchayats was not received till 30.03.2011. Being the Extension Officer Panchayat, the petitioner prepared a note for distribution of the said amount of stamp duty to the Gram Panchayats before 31.03.2011. This note was placed by the petitioner before the Block Development Officer who had approved of the same.